Am I the only one who agrees with what he is saying, or at least quoted as saying on the radio? Basically he has said that the education system gives everyone the impression they can become Doctors, Solicitors etc and they shouldn't be doing this as it really isn't true. This then leads to people staying on longer and longer working really hard but due to the lack of natural abilty always been destined to do unskilled work.

It is all very well that more and more people go to University but who is going to be left to do all of the unskilled jobs in a few decades. You will end up needing to have a degree to become a road sweeper or shelf stacker.

Personally i don't think he knows enough about state education to comment on it. I don't agree with what he says because i believe people should have aspirations in life.Not everyone wants to have highpowered jobs but the ones that want them should be encouraged and the ones that don't shouldn't be looked down on.They should have the chance to choose.

This is the reason that plumbers are the new accountants etc.

Originally posted by sarah_d
Personally i don't think he knows enough about state education to comment on it. I don't agree with what he says because i believe people should have aspirations in life.Not everyone wants to have highpowered jobs but the ones that want them should be encouraged and the ones that don't shouldn't be looked down on.They should have the chance to choose.

This isn't really the point, it is that the people who are happy not having high powered jobs are still pushed on to staying in education for years getting qualifications they never want to use. It's not about looking down on them just letting them be happy doing what they want to do.

I agree with you there but I don't agree with the other stuff he was saying.

he actually commented that people are encouraged to believe that they can achieve a lot with both no natural talent and no hard work.

I don't think he's correct though. People are encouraged to believe that they can achieve things if they do put the work in. Whilst it's true that not everyone can become a doctor or the pm through hard work alone, it's not true that "people shouldn't rise above their station" because that would presuppose that everyone had and knew there station in life based on their parentage. Which is clearly nonsense.

I haven't seen the whole text of what was said so wont comment on what I haven't seen. I don't think people should be judged on parentage simply on their own ability.

Perhaps Prince Charles watched Gattaca and thought it was a documentary ?

hmm... what exactly has he said? I keep hearing quotes about stuff but the only thing I saw written was about breeding robots or something?

charlie
"What is wrong with everyone nowadays?" the prince wrote. "Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities?

"This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centred system which admits no failure."

"People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability.

"This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history."

The memo concludes: "What on earth am I to tell Elaine? She is so PC (politically correct) it frightens me rigid."

I personally aspire to sitting on my arse all day getting paid a fortune for doing nothing realy, but I can't get into the royal family.

children need dreams and something to work towards, so do most adults. cos life is s**t and its better not knowing!

Having spent a few years as a school Governor, ending up as Chair of Govs on a local school, I wouldn't say that I'm an expert on the State System but at a 'gut' level I feel Chuck may have it partially right.

Of course children need to aspire - but they also need to realise that they need to work hard and become very resilient because in the Brave New World of apparent grade inflation and education that is so child centered that no one is really stretched there are going to be a lot of people with apparently high grades and apparently good degrees who know Jack ****.

It's desperately unfair to educate a child, convince them that by working hard they'll get good marks and then throw them in to a world where EVERYONE has good marks, and the differentiation applied by employers and colleges will be increasingly based on either private examinations, experience, or some other determining factor.

Allowing a child to fail is important - I learnt more from my screwups than I probably did from my successes. Praise and success is only worthwile when worked for and achieved against a system of grading that differentiates adequately.

Joe

How can Prince Charles, with a straight face, talk disparagingly of genetic and social engineering, and people having to put in hard work to get to where they want to be in life? The gall of the man is incredible.

Sorry, Charlie, but once you've lived outside your royal bubble for a few years, where hard work and talent actually relate to the quality of life you get back in return, maybe then people should start listening to you.

Pretty sure there's an element of ol' big ears running scared due to all these highly-educated people who seem to be asking funny questions about unelected heads of state...

He is criticising the "All shall have prizes" philosophy prevalent in Education, or said to be by the likes of Roger Scruton, Digby Anderson etc. Re graduates, many employers nowadays criticise the tendency amongst young, supposedly "educated" young people towards a lack of initiative. They are fine, it is often said, as long as they are tackling something that is in some way familiar to them, or they have done before. Give them an abstract problem to solve, in an unfamiliar area, and they are stumped. These are not necessarily my opinions. Roger Scruton [a conservative philosopher] thinks a possible solution may lie in the introduction of abstract, less relevant to everyday life subjects to the curriculum such as Latin. As opposed to the approach which says that everything must be "relevant", and that students must be able to "relate" to the subject, these more demanding subjects, pitched at a higher plane of abstraction, would be good "food" for young brains, and encourage an ability for initiative and adaptability. Scruton points to Victorian examples to illustrate his point.

School nowadays always seem to be pushing the kids to stay on in eduaction which is good, but I feel very sorry for the 'nice but dim' kids.

They try miles harder than anyone else, behave better and get really upset when they see friends who appear not to put any effort in get the grades to go to college to do A levels and then degrees.

For lads there appears to be more suitable vocational courses though far to few and of course girls could do them too ( but a lot of them really don't fancy the tradational 'male' apprenticeships) and then they seem to be left with hairdressing /beauty/caring etc. which is not everyones cup of tea.

Yes, then can do GNVQ's but I don't feel that they are enough at the majority of colleges that are in the areas they enjoy. GNVQ's also seem to be seen by a lot of kids as second best even though schools are trying hard to promote them and show what they are equal to.

I worry for the kids that I see in this postion at the end of year 11, they feel even more a failure when schools are pushing for 5 A-C and they don't get anywhere near them, then the pressure that is slowly easied on throughout year10/11 about staying on in education when they are not capable of it / not have the grades for it must also hit home and make them feel worse. No wonder so many kids hate school.

There needs to be more work based learning as I reckon many of these kids would excel in this way of learning, enabling them to stay on in education, hopefully the 14-19 green paper will eventually allow this though I reckon it is a long time off yet.

Originally posted by timo
He is criticising the "All shall have prizes" philosophy prevalent in Education, or said to be by the likes of Roger Scruton, Digby Anderson etc. Re graduates, many employers nowadays criticise the tendency amongst young, supposedly "educated" young people towards a lack of initiative. They are fine, it is often said, as long as they are tackling something that is in some way familiar to them, or they have done before. Give them an abstract problem to solve, in an unfamiliar area, and they are stumped. These are not necessarily my opinions. Roger Scruton [a conservative philosopher] thinks a possible solution may lie in the introduction of abstract, less relevant to everyday life subjects to the curriculum such as Latin. As opposed to the approach which says that everything must be "relevant", and that students must be able to "relate" to the subject, these more demanding subjects, pitched at a higher plane of abstraction, would be good "food" for young brains, and encourage an ability for initiative and adaptability. Scruton points to Victorian examples to illustrate his point.

Employers have always regarded graduates as being "not as able" as the previous generation, or the generation they themselves happen to belong to. Nonsense, of course. The argument put forward by Scruton is just an attempt to intellectualise what is a fundamentally flawed position to start with - it simply has no basis in fact. And the solution proposed is laughable, frankly. We don't live in Victorian times any more, and new-fangled courses such as "Web design" are of more use to the modern-day company than dead languages.

The vast majority of those who criticise those emerging from the education system have not set foot inside a school for many a year, and have not a clue about what is, or isn't, being taught therein. Indeed, I would imagine a large number who argue for the restriction of numbers of graduates do so from a position of not wanting to let the working classes "infect" outmoded elitist institutions. Ability, or lack of, doesn't really come into the equation for these people.

A few years ago in Sheffield one of the most popular degree's was 'communication studies' there seemed to be hundreds of people doing it. The only problem was that when they gcame out of education with their brand new degree employers didn't seem to be intersted, as a result communication studtes degree's were worthless . As time goes on more and more young people seem to be steered towards university and are then either doing the popular courses so the market is swamped with business studies, communication studies, media studies degree's and there are only a certain number of jobs around for these subjects. Or worse still the student does something like surf board studies or reading popular fiction and I don't think that impresses employers in the least.
I've been saying it for a long time bring back vocational subjects in schools and further education because as Charles says not everyone is going to be a pop star or TV presenter, there simply aren't enough jobs to go around, far better to help young people to come out of the education system with an ability that will help them get a job.

Originally posted by Greenback
Indeed, I would imagine a large number who argue for the restriction of numbers of graduates do so from a position of not wanting to let the working classes "infect" outmoded elitist institutions. Ability, or lack of, doesn't really come into the equation for these people.

Well, as one of those working class kids (mother a cleaning lady, father a labourer, born and bought up in a council house, state school all the way) who 'infected' an elitist institution I do feel that there should be a restriction of graduate numbers to maintain the absolute value of a degree.

Degrees need to be relevant to the needs of today, but do we really need thousands of degree level web designers, media studies people, communications studies people, etc.?

Joe

The problem (IMNVHO!) is that a degree is being marketed as the one true way of getting on in life - which is patently rubish. As degrees become more commen they will (and already are) become a much less valuable comodity, where technical skills which are pretty much looked down on these days will actually become a more valuable comodity - its simple supply and demand.

Originally posted by evildrneil
The problem (IMNVHO!) is that a degree is being marketed as the one true way of getting on in life - which is patently rubish. As degrees become more commen they will (and already are) become a much less valuable comodity, where technical skills which are pretty much looked down on these days will actually become a more valuable comodity - its simple supply and demand.

Yes, so often the basic skills, such as spelling, can be overlooked in schools today. ;)

Prince Charles is entitled to his opinion (like anyone else) and I think he got it right.

Ambitions beyond their abilities? Yes.

Plus criticism of any kind is now deemed way too harmful and everyone must be praised, no matter how crap, and everyone must win prizes, no matter how unworthy, as witness the mindless attitudes some schools have toward Sports and competition.

That said, I do so enjoy seeing kids falling apart on things like Pop Idol as it's the first time ever that someone has told them the truth. You can't sing, you can't act, you can't dance, you can barely string a decent sentence together and who the hell do you think you are wasting our time anyway who the HELL told you you were special because you're not. You're ordinary. Just like most other people.

Parents who think only of building self esteem and no self critical faculties in their kids and who never ever EVER dare say no to them are actually doing their kids very great harm.

What has been slightly overshadowed by this little spat, is that Charles Clarke wants to spread out among all schools the sort of sub-normal dross that makes poor schools bad. In other words lets introduce the troublemakers into those schools that are successful and bring them down to the standards of the bog standard comprehensives.

But what can you expect from a Labour minister who went to a public school? :mad:

i'm sure there were people arguing that when schooling to 16 was made compulsory it was a waste of 2 years for those kids who should be getting jobs and that it would devalue the results of those who would have stayed anyway, and that employers would be flooded with qualified people and no-one would get a job....

Surely a target to aim for is for society to educate everyone to the highest level they are capable of and wish to reach. (I'm not saying that this is possible now, but it's a target, maybe when we have robot labourers to do all our menial work it will be possible).

Yes, strange how Charles Clarke criticised Prince Charles' 'old-fashioned' ideas on exactly the same day that he announced that headmasters were to be given powers to search pupils for knives and so on... oh the irony etc.

I have to say that I reckon Prince Charles got it completely right... I don't think he was saying you can't rise above your station, he was just saying that you have to be realistic and see that if you're going to achieve excellence in anything you either have to have a natural aptitude for it or else you have to work extremely hard, and probably both. I don't really see anything wrong in that.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Well, as one of those working class kids (mother a cleaning lady, father a labourer, born and bought up in a council house, state school all the way) who 'infected' an elitist institution I do feel that there should be a restriction of graduate numbers to maintain the absolute value of a degree.

Why? What do you mean by "absolute value of a degree"? I don't understand the argument that if more people are educated to a certain standard, then that level of education becomes devalued for all. You don't get a degree certificate simply by turning up on time for lectures; your final grading is determined by what you do while you're there.

Surely we should encourage as many young people as possible to maximise their potential through learning, in whatever discipline they happen to excel? A university education is not for everyone, certainly, but places should be available for those who want them. Anything else is retrogressive.

Originally posted by Greenback
Why? What do you mean by "absolute value of a degree"? I don't understand the argument that if more people are educated to a certain standard, then that level of education becomes devalued for all. You don't get a degree certificate simply by turning up on time for lectures; your final grading is determined by what you do while you're there.

OK - I'm a hypothetical employer who wants to employ the most academically able as I am under the pervasive delusion that academically able means intelligent. 20 years or so ago I could easilly pick out the top small percentage of the population in terms of academic ability - because they had degrees and no-one else did. If I go to look now I find that 50 percent of the population have degrees so what do I now use as my benchmark - do I choose people who have come from a 'good university' (opening up social elitism rather than academic elitism) or do I ignore those with just a degree and say that now you have to have a masters. Either way the value of a degree gained today (in real world employability terms) is less than one gained 20 years ago - simple supply and demand.

Personally I'm all for academic elitism - is it better to churn out huge numbers of 'one size fits all degree' educated people due to some misguided idea that everyone must have a degree to succeed or is it better to challenge and stretch the academically able and value other skills as highly as academic ones?

A quick rider on the Prince Chuck thing though - I agree with elements of what he said - I do however think it came from the wrong person - i.e. someone who got where he is through neither talent nor hard work!

Originally posted by evildrneil
OK - I'm a hypothetical employer who wants to employ the most academically able as I am under the pervasive delusion that academically able means intelligent. 20 years or so ago I could easilly pick out the top small percentage of the population in terms of academic ability - because they had degrees and no-one else did. If I go to look now I find that 50 percent of the population have degrees so what do I now use as my benchmark - do I choose people who have come from a 'good university' (opening up social elitism rather than academic elitism) or do I ignore those with just a degree and say that now you have to have a masters. Either way the value of a degree gained today (in real world employability terms) is less than one gained 20 years ago - simple supply and demand.

Personally I'm all for academic elitism - is it better to churn out huge numbers of 'one size fits all degree' educated people due to some misguided idea that everyone must have a degree to succeed or is it better to challenge and stretch the academically able and value other skills as highly as academic ones?

A quick rider on the Prince Chuck thing though - I agree with elements of what he said - I do however think it came from the wrong person - i.e. someone who got where he is through neither talent nor hard work!

As an employer, I'd take into account the whole picture - the class of degree, the quality of the teaching on the course, the candidate's particular areas of expertise, and what the candidate has achieved in and outside academia to prepare them (or not) for the role they've applied for. Sure, locating the cream of the crop is more difficult than it used to be - but that's as a result of a more highly educated workforce, and hence there is more milk to wade through in the first place (apologies for the stilted analogy!)

Agree with the Charles thing - seems he can't stop sticking his nose into areas he's not qualified to comment on (architecture, nanotechnology, GM, etc).

Originally posted by evildrneil
OK - I'm a hypothetical employer who wants to employ the most academically able as I am under the pervasive delusion that academically able means intelligent. 20 years or so ago I could easilly pick out the top small percentage of the population in terms of academic ability - because they had degrees and no-one else did.

If you are looking for the most intelligent candidate then using degrees would be a bad way of doing it at any time.

A british 3 year BA/BSc is such a fundamentally short span of study, (2 years in most cases, of assessed work) that plenty of thick people can get them too, and always have done (proportionately speaking). Likewise, in the 'days of yore' it was quite possible to bull**** your way through an oxbridge degree, and just use your time to network with the up and coming ruling class.

Sure, plenty of mickey mouse degrees are about now, some worse than others, but if you as an employer can't tell the difference between a Dip.Ed. in Advanced Raffia Studies from frinton college and a First in History from Dundee then you are in trouble anyway.

Originally posted by evildrneil
[B]OK - I'm a hypothetical employer who wants to employ the most academically able as I am under the pervasive delusion that academically able means intelligent.

Surely the answer is to challenge the delusion rather than to pander to it by limiting the number of people educated to that level.
Education has never been purely synonymous with intelligence, although it does take a basic level of it to be capable of getting any sensible degree.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
If you are looking for the most intelligent candidate then using degrees would be a bad way of doing it at any time

Yup - thats why I said academically able rather than intelligent!

Originally posted by Cyclone
Surely the answer is to challenge the delusion rather than to pander to it by limiting the number of people educated to that level.

That depends on what the degree is being used for - if (as currently seems to be the case) a degree is being put forward as the one true way of getting a job then educating people to degree level to get jobs that don't exist is sheer folly. If you are proposing three years in academia as an exercise in learning then fine...

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
but if you as an employer can't tell the difference between a Dip.Ed. in Advanced Raffia Studies from frinton college and a First in History from Dundee then you are in trouble anyway.

Hey! are you dissing my Raffia degree ?
I'll have you know those ornamental baskets are bloody hard to make.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
but if you as an employer can't tell the difference between a Dip.Ed. in Advanced Raffia Studies from frinton college and a First in History from Dundee then you are in trouble anyway.

But how would a degree in History be of any use to an employer anyway? Unless of course the job was archaeology or something.

Originally posted by evildrneil
If I go to look now I find that 50 percent of the population have degrees so what do I now use as my benchmark


It's actually closer to 40% at the moment. 50% is the New Labour target. Also, the figure doesn't apply to the entire population, just school leavers each year. So obviously if you look at school leavers over the last few years the proportion with, or doing, degrees would be around 40%, but when you take into account the entire population, or even just the entire working age population, this figure is obviously drastically lower.

A bit unfortunate coming from Prince Charles considering his own son (Harry) did poorly in his exams and even then was suspected of cheating. I think I am right in saying that Harry is still getting into Sandhurst despite his poor results. This seems to be exactly the sort of thing Charles is complaining about.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
A bit unfortunate coming from Prince Charles considering his own son (Harry) did poorly in his exams and even then was suspected of cheating. I think I am right in saying that Harry is still getting into Sandhurst despite his poor results. This seems to be exactly the sort of thing Charles is complaining about.


Not to mention Charles himself getting to Cambridge with something like a B and a C at A-level. I wonder what they would be doing now had they not been born into royalty? It would probably involve a checkout - they shouldn't aim too high with their obvious lack of intelligence.

Originally posted by Greenback
Why? What do you mean by "absolute value of a degree"? I don't understand the argument that if more people are educated to a certain standard, then that level of education becomes devalued for all. You don't get a degree certificate simply by turning up on time for lectures; your final grading is determined by what you do while you're there.

Surely we should encourage as many young people as possible to maximise their potential through learning, in whatever discipline they happen to excel? A university education is not for everyone, certainly, but places should be available for those who want them. Anything else is retrogressive.

By absolute value of a degree I mean that teh standard of work, intelligence, problem solving ability, and general 'nous' should be equivalent across the board.

A degree is effectively an indication that the person with the degree has exhibited a certain amount of erudition that sets him or her apart from others. Agreed? Otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having degrees.

That erudition - let's sue that as a short hand for intelligence, hard work, problem solving ability, persistemce and natural talent - is not going to be possessed by all in society in the same way. There is, whether we like it or not, a natural spread in society of ALL traits. Education will try and flatten the curve somewhat, and broaden the peak of those with a certain level of learning, but there will STILL be a spread - just centered differently.

A university degree course should be at a level that is designed to push the person taking it to their limits. As a society we need people at that cutting edge, whether the degree is vocational or academic. The individual also deserves to be pushed - they want to show they're better than others. I think anyone with a degree who DOESN'T think that is lying to themselves.

Now, that means that a University degree course needs to be selective about who it takes on board. You say 'available for those who want them' - hogwash!

I wanted to do a physics degree but my maths wasn't up to it. It's a gap in the erudition that I needed, and had I gone to do the degree I would have been out of my deth with a vengeance. Just because someone wants something is NOT a valid reason for them always getting it.

If you make a degree course open to all, then it's by definition almost going to be of value to none. If a course has entry levels that are permissive rather than selective, then the chances are that the work done whilst on the degree will be marked in the same sort of way.

Yes, I'm elitist - meritocratic, but elitist. I want the education system of this country to be turning out very bright people to help us compete in the world. It's inteesting that 'hard' degree subjects - maths, physics, etc. are seen to be in decline whilst the easy ones are being taken up by the 18 year olds that the Government wishes to keep in higher education.


Joe

"then the pressure that is slowly easied on"
"School nowadays always seem to be pushing the kids to stay on in eduaction"
-Evei

Can't think why some people would need to stay on at school.

"Sure, plenty of mickey mouse degrees are about now, some worse than others, but if you as an employer can't tell the difference between a Dip.Ed. in Advanced Raffia Studies from frinton college and a First in History from Dundee then you are in trouble anyway."
-Phanerothyme

If I'm an employer that wants someone with an engineering background I'm in trouble either way. That's part of the problem, 40% of school leavers going to university, but not enough doing courses (including non-university ones) that people actually want/need.